A modest education reform that must be passed

State schools do the heavy lifting in Australia, and without Labor's funding boost, the potential of their students will be squandered, writes Peter Job.

This is one of a series of articles looking at Australia investing in its future in the lead-up to the 2013 federal election. More coverage can be found at the ABC's election website Australia Votes.

With the deadline for approval of the Federal Government's new schools funding arrangements officially past and a number of jurisdictions, notably Victoria and Queensland, announcing that they need still more time, teachers in the public education system return to their students with the knowledge that their long-term ability to provide best for them remains at risk.

While it is difficult to exaggerate the magnitude of what is at stake, it is important to understand what the new system, should it be approved, will not be.

The reforms are very far from the suite of arrangements proposed by David Gonski.

The implementation timetable falls far short of the original proposals, with the bulk of the money not to be delivered for some years. Another concern is the omission of the recommended National Schools Resourcing Body, intended to allow the resource standards, loading and other elements to be determined by an independent panel of experts. The exclusion of this measure will allow the continued politicisation of the model by future governments who will remain free to tinker.

Neither will it bring an end to the considerable inequities plaguing the Australian schools education system. Australia's educational arrangements will continue to be geared towards increasing rather than mitigating inequity, funnelling as it does students into schools with differing resources segregated by the ability of their parents to pay.

Non-government schools will continue to be free to discriminate against students based on a number of factors, including academic ability and socioeconomic background, providing them with a selective cohort both easier and cheaper to teach.

The promise that no school will lose funding will support a continuation of the irrationalities of the present system, maintaining funding of some schools at levels higher than they would otherwise be entitled.

Nevertheless, with its loadings based on student needs, the proposed new arrangements constitute a fairer and equitable funding system better targeted to allow all students to achieve.

While imperfect, these changes are probably the most which is politically possible given the strength of entrenched interests, and will provide government schools in particular with resources to better address the diverse requirements of their students. It is a testament to the sense of entitlement of the non-government sector and its supporters that this modest reform has met the resistance it has.

The reform also has to be seen in the context the SES funding system introduced by the Howard government in 2001. Purposely designed to favour the non-government sector and to increase enrolments in it, funding of that sector has increased significantly more than enrolments since its implementation.

It is in this context that claims by some that increased funding does not improve educational outcomes should be understood. Critics often cite flawed data originally published by the Grattan Institute which claims a 44 per cent increase in educational expenditure over 10 years, along with a decline in our achievement in the international measures. In fact, the National Report on Schooling shows a 24.7 per cent increase from 1999/2000 to 2008/09, very similar to the ABS figure of a 24.4 per cent increase from 1998/99 to 2008/09.

But as Dr David Zyngier of Monash University points out, this does not tell the whole story as this money has not been equally distributed. OECD data shows that funding for the government school sector has in fact decreased as a percentage of total government expenditure in the last 10 years from 4.9 per cent to 4.4 per cent, not including the one-off Building the Education Revolution program. The most marked funding feature in the last decade has been an increase in inequity between the government and non-government sectors.

The much touted decline in Australian educational achievement in the international measures has in fact been quite small, just above that of statistical uncertainty, only apparent over the span of four testing rounds in nine years, in only one of the three tested areas and in the context of overall high achievement in the PISA regime.

Nevertheless there is every reason to believe it is real and that it is a product of the inequity of funding between the sectors, with government schools increasingly denied the means to address the needs of the very diverse cohort of students under their care. This decline will inevitably increase further if these funding inequities are allowed to continue to grow, as they will if this modest reform is not passed.

Schools in the government education sector are unique in that they are open to all, address the needs of all to be best of their abilities and treat all equally regardless of background. They have a considerably higher number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds than any other sector and higher number of students with disabilities and other special needs. Yet they must also give equal priority to addressing the needs of academically capable and gifted students. It is the government education system that truly does the heavy lifting in Australia.

While debates about pedagogy and school practices are important, the major obstacle to allowing all students to achieve their best is not pedagogy but persuading governments to stump up the funding schools require to address these diverse needs.

The failure of this reform will see a further decline not only in the equity and fairness of our educational arrangements, but in the overall quality of outcomes as well, limiting opportunities to the majority of students who continue to attend government schools. Such a squandering of human possibilities will inevitably have a marked impact on our economy and society in years to come.

Peter Job teaches English and Humanities at Dandenong High School. He has a Master of Education from Monash University. View his full profile here.

BNB:

Funding in the past has been more heavily allocated to schools that with parents that can afford to pay more. This is the case in the recent past, and it's the case with the future model.

The plan claims to follow gonski.. what?

Who actually believes that? Oh right, the schools that are already heavily funded and continue to take money from funding that should go to schools that actually need it - they're lying through their hats, and the cute little embroidered hat of every child at their school!

While Australia continue to treat public schools like dirt, and please don't try to pretend otherwise, the dirt is what they'll get out.

For the nice little capitalists bleating about spending public money on education - here's your kicker: the people you're NOT helping get a useful education WON'T be contributing to your superannuation - educate them properly, and they will. Enjoy.

ron:

23 Jul 2013 7:23:47am

llanfair

If people on low incomes stop reproducing, companies will have fewer people to exploit, which would make them less rich, which would make them less able to afford education, which will make them less rich which will.....The wealthy like having a working class with working class education. This ensures a working class exists in perpetuity. The only people who are better off with mixed education levels are those receiving the benefit of better education with under educated becoming their future low paid employees.

v:

23 Jul 2013 3:27:10pm

Llanfair,

"to provide for your dalliances"

Well, there is nothing like a debate on school education to coax the grubs out of the woodwork.

Schools are there to educate HUMAN BEINGS - small ones, I'll admit, but HUMAN BEINGS nevertheless. And, as a society it is in our best interests to ensure that each new citizen of our society is equipped with as high a standard of education as we can give them.

So, what is all this nonsense about parents and their "dalliances"? School education has nothing to do with parents. It is a system by which we, as a society, educate our next generation of citizens. And there is a very good reason for this. One day we will be old and require care. If we educate the next generation correctly, they will have the skills and compassion to care for us when we need to be cared for, and to produce the wealth required to pay for it.

We live in a society, not as lonely islands. As a society we choose to educate our children. This is how society perpetuates itself, always has andn always will. Your dismal view has no place in civilised discussion.

v:

23 Jul 2013 2:51:34pm

gd,

"parents are actually the problem and not the educational system."

Your post is a perfect example of how the education system has failed us. Had the education system done its job with regard to your education, you would know what a "problem" is, what a "cause" is, and what a "consequence" is.

Parents are not a "problem". The school system is not a "problem". The "problem" is that our current school education system is not adequately educating the next generation to become capable, confident and well-informed citizens and, as a result, people like yourself are blissfully unaware of simple concepts like the difference between a "problem" and a "person", and seem to think that it is OK to refer to one's fellow human beings as "dirt".

gd:

22 Jul 2013 5:47:16pm

What will the money be spent on. Could someone in government please stand up and tellus what the money will be spent on and how that will achieve better results. The really funny thing is funding was actually taken away from education to repackage it into a waterdown Gonski.

Miowarra:

23 Jul 2013 7:43:05am

You haven't understood the process, have you?

The Federal government provides SOME of the money, the State governments decide how it's spent.

There's a National Curriculum being developed (since August 2010) which is currently at version 5. Go to that website to find out what's included. That means that at least, kids whose families move interstate won't lose subjects or skill paths.

But for the rest, you need to ask your State government, not the Feds.

ai:

23 Jul 2013 9:12:22am

Oh don'tgo on about a national curiculum. My mother a estern european migrant 40 years ago informed every state and federal education department about the issue of military children who have to move every couple of years having to struggle.40 years ! and we should be happythat in2013they are on version 5. Shows how thick the people running the education departments are.

Just grab theSingaporean curiculum and move all the grades down 2 years and job done. Oris that 3 years

Claudius Pseudonymus:

22 Jul 2013 6:02:43pm

The teachers want to be rewarded for supposedly fixing problems which their own idolence & sloth have created. Much they same as Rudd thinks he & Labor should be reelected bcos they are now changing the Carbon Tax (which we weren't supposed to have) and addressing the asylum seekers problem ( which Rudd created when he removed Howard's TPV)

How abt reducing the number of curriculum days off, report writing days off, professional development days off, early dismissals, student free days etc and actually trying to TEACH and improve education, huh??? How abt using the 51 paid working days off each yr (excl public holidays & weekeends and yes I counted) to actually do all the "planning" you say takes so much time. How abt remedial anpd extra classes during those 51 days off for those kids who require the "special needs" which you would have us all believe take so much of your time during normal school hours? How abt actually sending more time in classrooms than in the teachers' room and on the streets clamouring for more "funding" ....... yes, that's the code for more pay increases isn't it. Try once more to have some dignity and be worthy of the wages we pay you. Try to earn the respect you demand so vociferously rather than assume airs of a once noble profession which you yourselves have tradduced and brought ignominy to.Shame on the whole lot of you!

Chris Curtis:

22 Jul 2013 9:12:43pm

Claudius Pseudonymus,

?More ?funding?? is not ?code for more pay increases?, though an intelligent society does understand that it needs to pay teachers well in order to attract able people to the profession and keep them there. It could, for example reverse just some of the large relative pay cuts of the last four decades.

It could also restore the class sizes that used to apply in Victoria two decades ago (20 students in 1992 compared with 21.4 students in 2011) or the secondary staffing ratio that used to apply three decades ago (10.9:1 in 1981 compared with 11.8:1 in 2011). It could employ teachers? aides. It could do lots of things.

CP:

Chris Curtis:

23 Jul 2013 2:04:38pm

CP,

There is clear evidence that small classes improve student learning; e.g. the Tennessee STAR study.

The Victorian Commission of Audit report of 1993 shows the average secondary class size was around 22-23 students in 1984. I can?t be more precise because it is in a graph, not a table. The secondary PTR was 11.1:1 in 1984, better than now.

I don?t have average class size figures for 1974 or 1964. But I did start teaching in 1974. None of my classes exceeded 25 students, though I concede there were schools that did have classes above that number.

I have no doubt that in 1964 classes were larger. Fuel economy on cars was worse too. Do we keep going back until we find the worst situation possible and say nothing should have improved since then?

CP:

23 Jul 2013 4:34:02pm

Dear God. No wonder you joined the ALP, Curtis. You lot only ever have the one policy....throw money, lotsa money at a problem and hope it goes away. Budget Deficits every year and Public Debt now reaching $300billion.....Ye Gods.

No innovations or positive ideas that might change the teaching methods which have ossified over the last 40yrs. Just a clamour for increase "funding". That word which we all recognise as code for increase teachers salaries.

Yes, entice them over with guaranteed PRs and teaching jobs with the same pay & conditions which you lot seem to think beneath you.

There are thousands of Indian, Malaysian, Singaporean, Hong Kong & Filipino teachers who speak, read and write a better class of English (albeit with an accent) than the majority of Aussie teachers anyway.

They will be happy to take your jobs with those conditions which you lot eschew. They don't even have to come over in boats. We will PAY their plane tickets over with the increments you current lot are demanding. No need for "Aussie qualifications" whatever that means or whatever it's worth. After all these "Aussie qualifications" haven't done much good for our kids these last 20yrs now....

Yes, that would reduce student-teacher ratios, improve science & maths and introduce Asian education values & discipline. After all, there is an entire industry in private tutorials already in Australia staffed mainly by Asian teachers & professionals to make up for the lackadaisical education in state schools. Yes, that's something you missed in all your submissions to the Grattan Institute and your ALP talk fests.

That's a win-win situation eh??? Kids are better educated, lower student-teacher ratios and the public gets value for money. Or is that simply not the ALP way of doing things....???

will_r:

CP:

23 Jul 2013 9:33:29am

Exactly!! The talented teachers go to PRIVATE SCHOOLS where their work is properly remunerated. They at least are not afraid to be judged by the results their students produce.

The indolent, slothful & mediocre teachers remain in the state schools on lifelong tenures thinking not abt ways to improve productivity & academic stds but more abt how to blackmail state govts for increased salaries yr after yr.

v:

23 Jul 2013 3:45:16pm

CP,

"The talented teachers go to PRIVATE SCHOOLS "

No they don't. The teachers who go to private schools simply want more money. This says nothing about their level of talent.

Talented teachers get themselves jobs in advertising, where they can easily quadruple their income while working shorter hours, or the IT industry, where they can easily double their income while halving their workload.

And that's the biggest problem. While we continue to pay talented people more to lie to us than to educate our children, our best and brightest will continue to give the education system a wide berth.

Capitalism and the free market is supposed to organise things in their most logical and human-firendly manner. But, if you look at what we pay our most important and valuable professions (education, childcare, aged care etc) compared to what we pay for our most destructive and anti-social activities (advertising, marketing, usury etc). it is clear that the "system" (for want of a better word) is broken.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, the people of a tiny island with a population of just 14 million people have organised their society so well that they can EASILY provide world-beating school education services to ALL OF ITS CITIZENS for no charge and, to top it off, also provide free access to the best universtiy education available in the world. Despite the fact that the state fully funds all education services, the cost per citizen of providing what is undoubtedly a superior service to Cuban citizens is a tiny fraction of what Australian taxpayers have to fork out for an incomplete and broken system.

It is all a matter of priorities. In Australia, we pay people more to lie to us that we pay people to educate our children. In Cuba, they care about education. When we start to care about education, we will have a good education system too.

RegH:

22 Jul 2013 11:51:25pm

I was interested to hear Stephen Fry state during an interview, the by far the most demanding of a number of jobs he has done was teaching. When I left teaching in 1969 I went into what was supposed to be a high performance, high stress occupation. I was surprised that those that I worked with rarely took work home or worked back or started early. I worked for 18 months in that job without a holiday and that did not concern me. When I was teaching I worked much longer hours and by the end of term was feeling drained and much in need of a break. If teaching was such a great lurk, people would be rushing to join the profession. The fact is that it is hard work and a large proportion drop out in the first three years. Your comments display a great ignorance of the demands of teaching, and the dedicated performance of the vast majority of teachers.

Jessica:

23 Jul 2013 6:25:49am

Claudius...your comments are ignorant and hate-filled. If you think it's such an easy job, I will gladly hook you up with a lengthy list of teachers who would be happy to have you walk in their shoes for a week. You'd run screaming from the room. No? Didn't think so.

Henry the Moose:

CP:

23 Jul 2013 11:01:53am

Oh for heaven's sake!! I don't get paid for my holidays either. Nobody does. We are paid a YEARLY salary which we choose to take weekly, fortnightly or whatever.

This usual LIE being put out by teachers, that they don't get paid for the 51 days off each yr (excl public holidays & weekends) in addition to the extra 2 weeks of official leave you are entitled to, is exasperating.

And yes, you DO get FREE laptops bcos you claim EVERY CENT of the lease payment back on your taxes.

Can you lot all stop already with the bleeding heart stories and actually come up with progressive, innovative and productive ideas to improve academic stds??? Sure attach as many $$$ signs as you want on your paychecks BUT also put in accountability & productivity clauses as well. Can anyone out there actually do that instead of trotting out your usual excuses?

Come on. Do it for the kids which you always claim you go on strike for......or not.

Chris Curtis:

23 Jul 2013 2:12:46pm

CP,

I spent 33 years in schools and still mix with teachers. I have never heard an Australian teacher say that they don?t get paid for holidays, so it can hardly be a ?usual LIE?. Of course they do. They also get paid less in relative terms now than they did decades ago, but the holidays have not increased since then.

You don?t claim lease payments back from your tax, but from your taxable income, meaning that the cost is reduced but not eliminated.

The rest of your post is teacher-bashing drivel of the sort that I have been reading for 40 years.

The point of this thread was the Gonski plan, which is a change to the architecture of school funding with good and bad points to it, but as usual, the discussion has been diverted to the usual fact-free attacks on teachers.

Reinhard:

23 Jul 2013 9:48:23am

Claudius thank you for your full and frank outline of the Coalition's education policy: Allow me to summarise:. The public system isn't broken and if we get into govt we're not going to do anything to fix it. If standards continue to slide it's all the teacher's fault...oh and Labor too.

Slim:

23 Jul 2013 12:30:24pm

Sorry Claudius and supporters,

my wife is a primary teacher. Please tell me what day off she gets (w/e) that are not marking or planning. Please tell me which of the weeks she gets off are the ones she doesn't have to bring work home and mark or plan? And please tell me why she has to be the unpaid social worker, diplomat, Docs worker, mediator, dietician, personal trainer, police officer, psychologist, mother (not to her own kids), father (not to her own kids), doctor, therapist to kids and parents, parental advisor, and general clairvoyant - because it's really hard to know why johnny is off today - did his mum die, is she suffering from cancer, is dad an alcoholic, has he been abused or beaten or just neglected. And she's one of seven such people to whom parents expect they will give their own child the 100% attention they need because the parents are trying to live their failed lives through their kids.

v:

Usually it is a lack of faith in their kids' abilities that drives them to seek an unfair advantage on their children's behalf. If they had faith in their children, they would be content to allow them to stand on tehir own two feet, mix with a healthy diversity of human beings from different social classes and cultural backgrounds. But their lack of faith drives them to attempt to cloister their children away from normal society and inculcate them with a fear and distrust of the "hoi poloi".

The GPS schools proudly boast that they are training the "leaders of tomorrow" and those who fall for this guff and pay through the nose to inflict an inferior education upon their offspring do so because they honestly believe that their children are incapable of living in society unless they are the boss.

Private education is the anachronistic dag-end of feudal society. It has no place in a modern civilised nation like Australia.

Whitey:

23 Jul 2013 8:00:48am

There is much more wrong with state school education than a lack of money. The whole state school culture is set out to reward mediocrity, and it has done that very well. There is a collectivist agenda running through all facets of the public school system, from staff to curriculum, to discipline. Disruptive students stop other kids from learning, and the educational emphasis is appalling, with a political narrative rather than educational greatness as an objective. In spite of this, good kids do well, but the idea that throwing a lot more money at the problem will of necessity turn out better educated people is a fallacy.

Marko:

You have nailed it Whitey. Education outcomes have been in steady decline over the past 30 years, in large part due to the culture in our public schools that you have outlined above.

The other part of the equation is the slow breakdown of the family unit with increase in single parenting and families where both parents work and farm their children off to child care centres at 6 months of age. Small wonder that we now have record numbers of expulsions and teacher assaults in our schools.

How parents can outsource their parental responsibility in the formitive years of their kids lives and not expect some sort of negative impact on them , is beyond me.

Chris Curtis:

23 Jul 2013 2:20:40pm

CP,

Your claims are getting truly ridiculous.

You have not shown that money has ever been ?thrown? at eduction. You have not shown that the Gonskii plan is to ?throw? money at education. In fact, its calculations are based on the actual costs of what it deems to be successful schools. You can read the report if you want to know what it actually says.

If the 200,000-plus state school teachers ?are all ALP members?, how come the ALP has only 40,000 members?

It is untrue to say that ?increased funding always mean more money for teachers?. That is just silly - so silly that I probably should just ignore it. Years ago, my school, Waterdale High School, got extra money as a disadvantaged school. None of it went to teachers. Their pay and their numbers stayed exactly the same. The money employed teachers? aides, helped fund excursions and camps for poor students and provided curriculum material.

CP:

Not one word about productivity or accountability naturally. Those words are sadly always missing from teachers' lexicon and rhetoric.

Classroom numbers have fallen, teachers have been given more days off for ... professional development, report writing, curriculum days off, early dismissals, student free days etc. Free laptops and supplies for teachers as well as continuous wage increases each yr. And in return teachers have given us appalling academic standards over the past 20yrs.

v:

23 Jul 2013 4:24:13pm

Robin,

"CP it is curious that you choose to comment when you know so little of what you're talking about"

It is only curious from the point of view of a sane and rational person. Tories do not see the world in this way. According to the Tory view, knowledge of a subject is poison and logic cannot be trusted (Amanda Vanstone stated it beautifully on Q&A a few weeks ago). Anyone who refutes a Tory assertion through rational argument is immediately labelled a "bully".

This actually explains quite a bit about the traditional, ingrained Tory hatred of education, science and reason. Tories always argue "from authority", using themselves as "the authority", as this excuses them from any obligation to know anything about the subject of the debate. Education and reason equip "common" people with a superior "authority" (education and reason), allowing them to challenge (or "bully" in Tory parlance) the decrees and pronouncements of ignorant Tories.

The Tories of Russia panicked when tram conductors started to refuse their tips. Nothing scares a Tory more than a self-reliant, well-educated and socially-aware "hoi poloi". And this is why Tories favour a private-dominated education system that excludes the common person.

v:

rod:

22 Jul 2013 7:02:03pm

I guess why it is that Australia will never become anything other than a quarry has just been emphasized again.

Moreover CP you are categorically wrong about free laptops and supplies. Teachers in Victoria must pay for the lease of the computers they use in teaching out of their salary - they don't even get to deduct it from their tax. Who pays for your computer at work, CP? I'd bet you'd squawk if your employer asked you to buy your own work materials out of your salary.

CP:

23 Jul 2013 9:44:15am

Pull the other leg, Rod. The whole purpose of a COMMERCIAL LEASE (not a private rent) is so that you claim EVERY CENT back on your taxes. You're either ignorant or abysmally inept if you're NOT claiming the payments on your taxes.

And leases come with a Residual Value attached which is very low, something like 10-30% which YOU pay at the end of the term to ACQUIRE the goods outright. Most teachers would get a new model on a new lease BUT give it to their kids to use, whilst still using the older model BUT still claiming lease deductions on their taxes.

Gordon:

23 Jul 2013 1:14:08pm

There are lots of reasons why we might be "a quarry". Lack of education per se is not one of them. You don't need an engineering degree to can tomatoes. Mining is a high tech business where the entry-level skills are specialised machinery tickets or a trade, and NASA-grade maths and physics at the top. All well beyond that required for canning tomatoes. Yet food processing is now dying, as is the meat industry, whitegoods, and much other manufacturing. In fact the one bright area for engineers and applied scientists IS resources.

What we educate people IN might be the problem. I'm yet to read "cultural studies" as a prerequisite in a job ad, and fewer derogatory references to "quarries" might be in order too.

I do not join the chorus of teacher-bagging: yes of course you should get a computer as part of your equipment. I have heard also of teachers paying for paper and pencils from their own pocket. Disgraceful. I would vote for more education spending but I would look critically at how it was to be spent.

Curious party:

22 Jul 2013 7:38:42pm

Why is it that people of your political persuasion think that you can simultaneously excuse exorbitant CEO salaries on the basis that it encourages the best candidates, but then make these sorts of arguments against increasing teacher pay.

Or do you just not want to have the best people entering the teaching profession?

CP:

22 Jul 2013 9:31:20pm

When CEOs and those in private business improve productivity and increase profits, they at least have a legitimate reason to demand proper remuneration which are then voted on by the shareholders. They are held to account for their success or omissions.

BUT state school teachers are incredibly seeking higher salaries for one appalling academic year after another for the past 20yrs. Teachers then presumably measure their success by their extent of the miserable results that the students, supposedly under their tutelage, produce. What utter & shameless gall. That's like Richard Fuld of Lehman Bros demanding a bonus for bankrupting the 4th largest bank in USA!!

Productivity and accountability are, as I repeat, lost on teachers who refuse to acknowledge their culpability and decline responsibility for their incompetence & deficiencies. The only thing that motivates them it seems is their avarice.

ron:

"When CEOs and those in private business improve productivity and increase profits"

The big problem with this is the metrics. How can you measure the 'profitability' of a service provider such as a teacher or other government employee.

Lets take the police as an example. At present each police officer is responsible for for responsding to x number of crimes. Lets say that crime rates are reduced by 50% as a result of good policing. If the number of police remain the same then productivity per officer in the subsequent period would be 50% less as there are fewer crimes. Should the police commissioner therefore reduce the police force by 50%?

What metrics do you use to measure the productivity of a teacher? Number of student achieving a certain grade would be the obvious. However, this is not clear cut. A teacher in a wealthy area would generally have students that receive positive encouragement and support from parents, not just in education but also in other social areas, such as sport participation, music etc. In lower wealth areas this support is often less and many children have more to deal with than just getting an education. This would increase the likelihood of underperformers and class disruptions. Would the lower academic achievement in this group be sufficient argument for paying the teacher less?

The education review is about identifying areas in need and provide additional funding to help better resource those areas, rather than the other model that says the others are doing well so we'll give them a bonus and reduce funding to the lower performers.

Jade:

23 Jul 2013 9:17:43am

So then, if CEOs are rewarded for good performance, explain to me why they never fail to "reward" themselves with massive pay increases, despite laying off hundreds of workers due to "economic pressures" and "downturns in profits"?

I don't have a problem with accountability, nor with productivity. However, those bleating endlessly about it have no real concept of what they are talking about when it comes to teaching. In the several private industries I worked in, bonus pay was based on team efforts. If your team did well, you got a bonus, regardless of your personal contribution. Furthermore, there were few "benchmarks". Experts looked at market conditions, as well as previous results and set a target based on a range of factors.

We cannot compare schools, nor suggest that because a private school produces good results, their teachers are necessarily better. School and teacher results should be based on how far their students have actually moved in a year. Students need to be tested at the commencement, and then retested at the end, with a target set that takes into account their differing circumstances, the resourcing of the school, the range of special needs in each classroom and the school as a whole, and where the students started.

Too many private schools tout their teachers as excellent, when it is in fact their students who are excellent, and the teachers merely adequate. When you start with excellent base materials, you are going to produce great results.

ME:

23 Jul 2013 10:00:48am

OK, that?s twice you?ve mentioned productivity. So now go on and explain what productivity is in the delivery of educational outcomes and how you suggest we measure it. You seem to be implying that lower wages means lower input costs, and assume that outputs will either remain constant or rise. That?s a patent nonsense. A more likely outcome is that as wages for labour fall, the supply of labour will also fall in both absolute and qualitative terms, resulting in a fall in output. In other words productivity will fall, not go up as you try to suggest.

Snag:

23 Jul 2013 10:27:04am

I seem to recall that all the bankers still got their bonuses (as opposed to jail time) when they brought the capitalist system to the brink of collapse. And barely a week goes by without hearing of some CEO 'stepping down' with an eight-figure payout from a company going to the dogs (often a formerly public entity which has been sold off to private interests).

Furthermore, if avarice was the sole motivation for pursuing a career the teaching profession, I doubt we would have any teachers. Which would be fine, because then nobody would be educated enough to aspire to working for more than $2 a day.

v:

23 Jul 2013 4:35:53pm

CP,

"They are held to account for their success or omissions."

Actually, this is errant nonsense. The modern corporation is a device via which those who profit most carry the least responsibility. And this definitely includes CEOs and other board members, usually installed by institutional investors (mum and dad shareholders can forget about any meaningful level of control - they just provide the bucks). And, as for CEO's being "held accountable", this whole concept sits very uncomfortably with the frequent occasions in which CEOs have left failing companies with golden parachutes exceeding $100 million.

The best way to get rich quick as a CEO is to find a good company, cut costs to the bone and let the whole enterprise decay. This produces a wonderful "bottom line" and guarantees your bonus. You then move on to the next fat company and repeat the exercise while your initial host withers and dies, throwing its emloyees onto the scrapheap and leaving its creditors in the lurch.

CP:

Jessica, you mean the talented & progressive teachers are leaving in droves doncha?? They are streaming to Private Schools where their industry is properly recognised and remunerated.

And that is because these teachers are NOT shy of being held accountable. They are eager for responsibility and in fact very proud to be judged on the results that their students produce. After all their salaries are predicated on performance.

How unlike state school teachers who refuse to accept any productivity clauses to their avaricious pay demands. They are chary of any accountability and yet hold their greedy hands out for largesse despite the miserable results that their students, supposedly under their tutelage, produce yr after miserable yr.

Pegaso:

22 Jul 2013 10:07:37pm

Care to name the schools and teachers where all this happens?I spend time at a High school in a volunteering capacity to assist teachers, assist special needs students. I see the amount of unpaid time teachers give to the school and the students.In any other work place the employees would not tolerate this situation.Parent /Teacher nights, Open Nights,excursions that involve overnight stays and therefore supervision, all are unpaid outside of normal hours.These "appalling" education standards have enabled my son to acheive the highest levels in his Arts and Honours degrees in Australia and enabled him to receive an invitation to do a Phd in North America.

Dazza:

CP:

Pegaso, wake up and smell the hummus wilya. This is 2013 not 1983 Bob Hawke days where people are paid for the HOURS they supposedly work.

It is NOT the hours teachers put in but the QUALITY of the work that is crucial. Simply turning up every other day and going through the motions does NOT qualify as working.

And btw, everyone works unpaid overtime these days. Most office staff are in at 8.30 and leave at 7-8pm, working at home and on weekends as well and all WITHOUT the 51 working days off each yr (excl public holidays and weekends and yes, I counted)

We are judged on the quality of work we produce. Our salaries are determined on productivity not hours. Our continued employment is predicated on continued improvements.

State school teachers on guaranteed lifelong tenures believe themselves the only ones working "overtime". They moan abt how "hard" they are working and how "long" the hours. And yet these same teachers are afraid and loathe to be judged on the results that the students, supposedly under their tutelage, produce.

Why?? If you are indeed "labouring" then be proud of results of your labour! Oh, but then there is NOTHING to be proud of given the miserable academic results and standards being churned out each yr. No, I'm NOT saying academic stds have fallen. They have wallowed instead in the sloth and indolence of the teachers while Asian schools have leapfrogged Australia.

Pegaso:

23 Jul 2013 2:29:16pm

I am awake CP and I can smell the humus,(I can spell it too), its in your post.Take a week go volunteer in your local school, Primary or Secondary,then get back to me.I cited my son as an example of the quality of education provided to him.He is but one of many, to acheive results like this.I well recall his English teacher giving up her whole Saturday at her home to support him because she believed in him and was committed to her profession.As some concession to your views I will say any deficiencies that exist in the education system can always be traced back to Conservative Governments who have never adequately supported or funded education

Chris Curtis:

22 Jul 2013 3:16:16pm

As the person who originally calculated the correct figures for increased education expenditure in response to the Grattan Institute?s claim and the various repetitions and exaggerations of that claim since, I would like to correct the misstatement by the author. The National Reports on Schooling in Australia do show a real increase in education spending of only 24.7 per cent per student, but the ABS figure of 24.4 per cent is nothing to do with education expenditure. It is the real increase in per capita GDP over the ten years from 1998-99 to 2008-09. The relevance of this is that the salaries of teachers have to keep up to some extent with the general living standards of the population as a whole. Does anyone really think we would attract able people to teaching and retain them if that 24.7 per cent increase in education spending had not occurred and, as a consequence, the top Victorian teacher salary was now only $68,755 and the beginning salary was now only $46,612?

I also point out that the fact that the proportion of funding going to private schools has increased is neither here nor there. Even if the payment per student remained the same, the proportion going to private schools would automatically increase if the proportion of students in private schools increased. In fact, it would automatically increase even if the proportion of students in private schools stayed exactly the same but a greater proportion of that proportion were in secondary rather than primary schools, the reason being the higher costs of secondary schools, both government and private.

Dave:

22 Jul 2013 8:18:13pm

Shhhhh! Don't disturb the author or half the posters here with facts!

The truth is, about 2/3rds of students in NSW attend public schooling, while they receive about 3/4ths the funding. Private schooling subsidises the public sector. The majority of private schools are relatively low fee, and many are not selective at all. I have no problem reducing funding for those few 'elite' schools.

The biggest thing that can be done to improve standards in the public sector is reduce the sway unions have on staffing. As it is, it is almost impossible to fire sub-standard teachers (the majority by far are great, but a few bad apples...). In the private system, this is far less of an issue.

Chris Curtis:

22 Jul 2013 9:15:47pm

Dave,

The unions have no say on staffing in Victoria. A principal can start the process to dismiss an unsatisfactory teacher but natural justice has to be followed. I have seen too many examples of bullying to allow principals to sack teachers on a whim.

RegH:

23 Jul 2013 12:30:13am

Australia, I believe, is the only country in the world that funds private schools. If you want a private school education, you should pay for it yourself. To claim that the private system subsidises the state system is ludicrous. Why should your choice to have your child given what you believe to be a superior education to that available in a public school be subsidised ? I would be perfectly happy for all private schools to shut down and the costs of educating all students in public schools be born by the state. Then the elitists might be a bit more keen for public schools to adequately staffed and resourced. I was horrified to hear the complaints about public schools being provided with adequate shaded areas in the playground as part of the BER program when government funding is being used to allow private schools to provide swimming pools and sophisticated gym set ups. And yes, there is a proportion of incompetents in the teaching profession in both state and in private schools as there is in all professions in both the public and private sectors. You can't really put that all down to the unions. If you have any knowledge of the system in NSW to deal with under performing teachers, you would know that it firstly provides structures to improve performance. If that fails a teacher can be dismissed. If the process has been fair, the union cannot prevent the dismissal of a teacher. Your claim that " it is almost impossible to fire sub-standard teachers" is false.

gd:

23 Jul 2013 6:54:01am

Oh Reg how sweet. Let's shut all private schools, go tell thatto Mr Rudd and see the fear inhis eyes. Imagine the extra 100 of billion to build all those new schools ( or were you planning on just taking then from the private owners ) then imagine the extra billion each year for ongoing costs ( or once agian were you going to get the private teachers to work for free )

Starting to see your idea is very silly. But let us take your idea further. What actually would happen. Well the students that go to private school would end up going to public funded students essentially from the old school and these schools would get the better results. This wwould then show everyone that it os not how much money you spend on schools it is the childs and parents attitude to education

Chris Curtis:

23 Jul 2013 7:58:53am

RegH,

Australia is not ?the only country in the world that funds private schools?. That?s just another of the many myths that distort public debate in this country.

In New Zealand, Catholic schools are fully funded as an integrated part of the state system. In Germany, private schools are largely subsidised by the states because the German Constitution guarantees access to education. In Sweden, private schools are funded by the government. In the US, private charter schools are funded by the government. In several Canadian provinces, private schools are funded by the government. In the UK, the government funds large numbers of religious schools as they are integrated into the state system, but they are still religious and they are still privately run. It does not fund elite private schools, but that is a different issue.

Dazza:

23 Jul 2013 8:33:32am

Doesn't matter if children are in Public or Private schools, Reg.

Our Constitution clearly states that governments are responsible for the funding of children's education but doesn't specify where, so Privately educated children have just as much right as Publicly educated children to be funded to a point.

Governments need to make Private schools accountable for their funding and ensure that they are not charging parents above and beyond what is reasonably expected and use the public funding part for other means other than educating children.

Or, governments can credit each Privately educated family their portion of their tax they pay for Public education, so they're not discriminated against for choosing Private education.

BNB:

23 Jul 2013 3:15:03pm

it does matter, however, where the money goes - perhaps you should keep to the topic at hand?

The actual point made is that private schools are completely redundant, and they are.What is the purpose of a private school? 1. to indoctrinate children in a long-dead bronzeage nonsense myth that, realistically, most people can now see is as valid as an argument for the existence of the loch ness.2. to access what they think are "quality teachers" - why? because the private schools have access to more cash.

so - when we all get over our 5000 year old hysteria (according to my public-school statistics education, has a trend which puts religion in a minority in the next 20-30 years, based on ABS data - see 2012 census data), we can see the only point being validly made - is actually nothing more than putting the cart before the horse.

i.e. people want more money to go to some schools because it means they can send their kids to a school with more money.

Which, according to my public-school education, is a circular argument, and given finland's recalcitrance in religion, their failure to embrace what is totally fallacious logic might be why they've ditched the whole absurd notion anyhow.

Who is brave enough to point out we don't need this nonsense? no religiously-beaten politician, that's for sure!

Peter:

22 Jul 2013 3:19:19pm

"OECD data shows that funding for the government school sector has in fact decreased as a percentage of total government expenditure in the last 10 years from 4.9 per cent to 4.4 per cent". One sweeping statistic can be a proble. Was this total combined State and Commonwealth expenditure, or just Commonwealth , or just State? Was it gross expenditure, or per capita? Were selective state schools such as Kelvin Grove and James Ruse included?This is not to say your article does not have merit - just that using that unexplained figure as its basis does not strengthen your case.

Chris Curtis:

The government?s funding reforms are not ?very far from the suite of arrangements proposed by David Gonski.?

The Gonski panel recommended a basic per student amount. The government plan includes a basic per student amount.

The Gonski panel recommended calculating the basic per student amount by reference to the costs of so-called high-performing reference schools. The government plan calculates the basic per student amount by reference to the costs of so-called high-performing reference schools.

The Gonski panel recommended payments to private schools of between 90 and 20 or 25 per cent of the schooling resource standard. The government plan includes payments to private schools of between 90 and 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard. Yes, the ?or? went.

The Gonski panel recommended paying private schools based on the SES scores of the students? neighbours; i.e., the Howard government?s model. The government plan includes paying private schools based on the SES scores of the students? neighbours; i.e., the Howard government?s model.

The Gonski panel recommended jurisdictions have the freedom to allocate the funding to individual schools in accordance with their own rules as long as they were transparent and needs-based. The government plan includes jurisdictions having the freedom to allocate the funding to individual schools in accordance with their own rules as long as they are transparent and needs-based.

The Gonski panel recommended paying 100 per cent of the SRS to government schools. The government plan includes paying 100 per cent of the SRS to government schools.

The Gonski panel recommended ensuring that the increased school payments have no effect on a state?s GST entitlements. The government plan ensures that the increased school payments have no effect on a state?s GST entitlements.

The Gonski panel recommended low-SES payments for students in the bottom quartile. The government plan includes low-SES payments for students in the bottom two quartiles. At last, a significant change!

Some features of the government plan are being reported as if they were not part of the Gonski recommendations, even though they were. This fits with the general poor quality reporting on the school funding issue.

Nance Loney:

22 Jul 2013 3:24:39pm

Yes - what a waste of talent and resources it is to underfund the majority of our schools.

To consider education as expenditure rather than investment is totally mistaken. It is as much and investment as is infrastructure funding. The pupils/students may derive personal benefit but the nation gains "Human Resources' to drive our industry.

Strangely, however, in the NSW 2012 HSC results, the top performers came from government schools. If I remember correctly, the highest any private school student came was ninth. First to eighth were all from government schools. So much for performance of the privileged few. Of course, some private school children may have achieved much higher grades than they may have done had they attended public schools - a measurement no one can make.

I cannot wait for the partial Gonski funding model to take effect. It will be some years before the public school funding catches up, but in the end, given sensible Governments in Canberra, we will reap the maximum benefit from all our children as they move into the workforce.

Please sign up - all State Premiers - the country needs this new funding model. Forget who initiated it - just benefit from it.

gd:

22 Jul 2013 7:57:03pm

Do not mistake selective schools from the average public school.Selective schools are made up of over 80% asains who work hard and value education. All the selective schools show is great results are possible in the public system with the right attitude of students. Selective schools get no more funding than the average state school. All about hard working children and supportive parents.The average white parents assume more money will make little Johnny smarter. Sorry waste of money Gonski. It will take 5-10 years to show this the truth. GONSKI is already a failure with no actual plan.Just go tothe betterschools website fora bit of a chuckle.

Miowarra:

Interactive whiteboards - wishful thinking. Not every school has one. It depends on what the principal has chosen to buy.

"the con that less money is being spent" Blatant misrepresentation - Chris did NOT make that claim.

"unnecessary trinkets" Since you DON'T teach you wouldn't know what's necessary or not. If you tried to teach with "chalk and talk" techniques these days, you'd be out on your ear as incompetent and untrained.

Stay in the 1950s, gd, the 21st century is obviously too much for you.

gd:

23 Jul 2013 9:27:35am

miowarra how sweet. Go into a modern classroom and have a look at a photo of a classroom 50 years ago. No trinckets just great education.

Oh as to the comment I don't teach, well I actually home school my kids. No fancy trinkets justgood old pen and paper. Funny that despite being in grade three they are 5 years ahead of the Australia standards. I must be terrible out dated and incompetent inmy methods.

I suggest you stay in the 21 century as you are obviously unaware of good education without the trinkets.

Chris Curtis:

23 Jul 2013 8:05:19am

gd,

How on Earth can ?Money has never been thrown at education? or ?Spending has just kept pace with economic and population growth? be interpreted to mean that I said that ?less money is being spent on education ??

Of course I believe that ?Spending has just kept pace with economic and population growth?. I gave the figures and the source in another post.

There was no golden age in education: the ABS?s Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey survey showed that, with the exception of teenagers, older people have lower levels of literacy than younger people: ?Literacy levels tended to decrease with age, with higher proportions of people in the older age groups attaining skill scores lower than Level 3. The exception to this was the 15 to 19 years age group, which had lower levels of literacy than the 20 to 24 year age group.?

Just under 40 per cent of those aged 20-24 scored at only Level 1 or 2 on prose and document literacy, while around 50 per cent of those aged 55-59 did so, with even higher proportions of those who were older failing to get higher than Level 2. The patterns for numeracy and problem solving were generally similar.

gd:

23 Jul 2013 12:02:23pm

Chris and Moiwarra

Just look at any school in Australia and compare it to any picture of a 50s classroom. Anyone saying that less or the same amount of money is being spent on our children needs their eyesight looked at. The problem is a all this money has not translated into better results.

As to not teaching anyone Miowarra, actually I home school my kids and they are 5 years ahead of their Australian peers. All with pen and paper and no trinkets. So yep I am happy to live in the 50s if it means better educational outcomes for my children. Seems to me all this money wasted on all these 21st century technology hasn't really made any difference.

Chris Curtis:

23 Jul 2013 1:23:08pm

gd,

Yet again, I did not say that ?less or the same amount of money is being spent on our children?. I said that ?spending has just kept pace with economic and population growth?, and I explained why this is necessary in another post.

Barneseye:

22 Jul 2013 3:53:28pm

Your passionate and at times one-eyed argument for ... what in the end? ... needs further thought.

You try to construct an argument that non-government schools are funded inequitably. Yep, you are right. Catholic school receive somewhere between 80-90% of the funding of govt shools. Independant schools even less. A low-fee paying independent school barely survives, and relies on fund-raising to meet any capital expenditure needs.

Facts are what are needed in this argument ... you have some ... and misconstrue others. Please do not argue that govt school receive less funding the others - because it is simply not true! Further, your argument that the SES is designed to favour non-govt schools is unsubstantiated rubbish. Please show us how. The SES provides funding based on the resources of the sending family. If they have little money - the school gets more.

So what do you want? Do you want equal funding? Catholic and Independant schools will jump with glee!

Do you want govt schools to have the ability to charge fees? Some do.

Do you wish to do away with non-govt schools altogether? Possible, but the system would break. The govt can simply not afford all the students to be funded at govt school rates, because it is economically efficient to have non-govt schools - it simply costs the govt a lot less.

But let us say you did get rid of non-govt schools. Would non-govt schools cater for the diversity of religious and ethical wishes of the community without vilification? Will you teach a child about the historical and metaphysical reality of Jesus?

So do you increase funding to govt schools and leave Catholic and Independant schools where they are? You will just exacerbate the issues that concern you. Low fee schools (the majority of non-govt schools are low-fee schools) will be forced to raise the fees (to cover the gap). Only those who can afford will go there.

These are complex issues and your argument is too simplistic: Govt schools do all the hard work so need more money. Ever taught in a non-government school? I think not. You need a more complex and nuanced funding model.

Personally, a flat fee-per student model for both govt and non-govt school, with rewards for hitting demographic targets and needs.

Jade:

23 Jul 2013 11:56:20am

If private schools want government money they should abide by the same rules that government schools do. They should no longer be exempt from anti-discrimination legislation, and they should not be allowed to refuse entry to students, or expel students except under the same circumstances as state schools.

Furthermore, rural private schools are the only ones that are really needed in order to provide "choice" to parents, since in many rural communities parents have a choice of boarding school, or distance education, which is often not suitable for Senior Schooling. Rural private schools are often severely underfunded, despite providing an invaluable and necessary service. Strange that we never hear the Independent Schools unions talking about their needs.

If there is more than one public school in a 20 k radius, private schools should not receive government money, unless they agree to behave like public schools. But that would kind of defeat the purpose for most parents, wouldn't it?

gd:

stephen:

22 Jul 2013 4:09:12pm

A reform of education has really nothing to do with funding, which is the domain of the government.Rather, it is School Principals who should have a much greater say as to curriculum and a school's ethos.As long as laws are not broken, government schools should be encouraged to develop their own 'personality', as non-government schools are.

When I was at school I found it a dreadful experience ; the teachers were daft, (they weren't interested in me because I was not interested in what they had to say) the subjects were unsuitable for my interests, yet there was no other school which offered a variety of activities which I wanted to do.And it is this variety that I think is still lacking amongst government schools.

Ozchucky:

22 Jul 2013 11:16:13pm

Thank you Stephen,I think you have put your finger on the core issue in government school education, especially regarding high schools.

It is very difficult and distressing for a secondary school teacher to try to teach the curriculum to a classroom full of students some of whom are gifted, whilst others are struggling with basic literacy and numeracy. This is a common situation in a government secondary school.

What tends to happen is that the gifted students learn their own way and ignore the teacher. The strugglers often lapse into misbehaviour as a relief from boredom, and ignore the teacher. Both extremes switch off, and their parents complain. The net outcome is that ALL (yes, every single one of) the students in such classes are disadvantaged. Government schools are hopelessly under-resourced to deal with this situation.

Does it matter ? Surely, I exaggerate ? Consider this. After at least four years of tertiary education, 50% of new teachers have left the profession within 5 years. More than a few of them exit on worker's compensation.

The need to address the individual concerns of students in government schools is monumental. And it will require monumental reforms to fix it. The solution is not to just pay teachers more and tell them to work harder. That would be stupid. What is required is more educational options, more specialised schools, more analysis of individual student needs and more professional assistance to address those individual needs. This cannot be done without an increase in funding..But who cares ? They are our children.

Bullfrog:

22 Jul 2013 4:11:44pm

From the position of a parent, there are several advantages that private schooling have over public.Bullying / harassment policies that actually mean something. Public schools that I have had exposure to (three states, over the last 20 years) have an extraordinarily difficult time enforcing any form of discipline. Private schools, on the other hand, have a lot more flexibility on this front.Teacher quality. There have been some extraordinarily good teachers in the public system, that when forced to take their next transfer have simply opted to leave teaching in the public sphere. And are picked up by the private system quickly. There is a level of inflexibility in the public system that can work to the detriment of it.Resource levels. As mentioned, public schools are required to take on all comers. And are under resourced. As a result, some students do not get an optimal education. Again, private schools give parents that choice.If the issues above could be solved, quickly, then my willingness to use government schools would be greater. However, I am not seeing the resources thrown at the job, even under Gonski full blown (which we didn't get) to make this happen.

OverIt:

22 Jul 2013 7:40:33pm

Funny you should mention bullying, Bullfrog. Of all the kids I have ever known who have had to change schools because of bullying not being adequately addressed, they were all, without exception, private school students.

Incidences of bullying I have known about in public schools, however, have all been jumped on immediately.

Now I'm not dumb enough to think this would be the case in every situation, but it actually has been my experience. I truly believe that, as in many other aspects of schooling, the differences and the good and the bad come down to individual schools, not private vs public.

Leafygreen:

23 Jul 2013 9:26:35am

Public schools are open to public scrutiny, private schools keep it behind closed doors. Private schools off load their problem kids: non achievers through to those with serious behavioral issues back into the public system.

Our local flagship public school gets the year 11 and 12 ( and year 13) cast offs from the 4 private schools in the same catchment.

Private schools pick and choose, public schools have to enact the education until 17yo requirement for any kid living their catchment.

If the parents willing to " invest" in private education were willing to invest the equal time and effort and money in their local public school the system would work. Instead too many parents think it is schools responsibility to fix and educate their kids in all things and that they can pay for it or have to right to openly criticize a system that is overwhelmed by parental abrogation of responsibility.

Curious party:

Rusty:

23 Jul 2013 7:49:01am

Curious,

Labor have made it a stupid choice between funding either system - before Labor both were funded...so based on your preference we will have university "trained" engineers that can't design a structure etc...your a genius mate!

din:

So why dont some states sign up ? Could there be something in the policy put before them that they are not happy with ?

I have seen the ads being played in NSW saying why its important to agree to Gillard's plan - which is a bit confusing since NSW was the first to sign up. I put that down to government wastes.

As for government schools being open to all, does that mean that there are no selective government schools ? Maybe you mean that "some" schools in the government education sector are open to all.

I do remember there were selective government schools when I was last looking at schools, and I doubt they have all closed down.

but in theory, i do agree that we need to stop looking at what the parents can pay, and more at the government ensuring our children get the best education they can get. I'm in agreeing with the gonski reform.

Chris Curtis:

22 Jul 2013 4:58:10pm

The author mentions ?the irrationalities of the present system, maintaining funding of some schools at levels higher than they would otherwise be entitled? without explaining what they are. Every person I have read who makes this claim misunderstands or misrepresents the current funding system, just as every person but one I have read fails to explain that the Gonski panel actually endorsed the Howard government?s socio-economic status funding model.

It is extraordinary how powerful John Howard still is. His change to the way of thinking of the nation was so profound that almost all discussion on education assumes that his SES model was essentially fair and just and that anything that varies from it must be wrong.

The most extraordinary feature of the media coverage of school funding over the last 17 months is its failure to mention the key fact: under the Gonksi plan, Labor is gradually forcing schools off its socially just education resources index funding model and onto the Coalition?s socially segregating socio-economic status funding model, the model that punishes the most inclusive private schools (i.e., the low-fee ones in middle class areas).

Prior to the Howard government?s changes, schools were funded on the basis of their own income. A low-fee school with few private resources would get more government support than a high-fee school with lots of private resources. It did not matter whether the school was attended by people with wealthy neighbours or people with poor neighbours or if the parents of the children were wealthy or poor. The system supported social inclusion because it gave more money to a low-fee school than to a high-fee school. Thus, a low-fee school serving a middle class neighbourhood could keep its fees low and thus still take comparatively poorer children. It was not forced to put up its fees and drive poorer children out of it because it drew students from a middle class area.

The SES funding model changed all that. It ignored school fees, school income and school resources. It funded schools on the basis of how well off the students? neighbours were. This immediately penalised low-fee schools in well-off areas. No longer could they be accessible to poorer families.

The result was the funding guaranteed promise. The public education lobby calls this ?over-funding?. It looks at what a school would get under the absurd SES model, declares that to be the fair amount and condemns any extra. Yet the extra is compensation for the failings of the SES model. The ?extra? simply restores the school?s level of support to what it would have been if the SES model had never been introduced, if the school?s fees and other income were taken into account, if the Labor Party?s model had stayed in place. The low-fee private schools were conned by thee Howard government. By agreeing to the SES model with funding guaranteed, they set themselves up for 12 years of cri

Chris Curtis:

The SES model also broke the nexus between funding and fees. There was no longer any incentive for a school to keep its fees low, as the fees charged had no effect on the level of taxpayer support.

The Gonski panel wants to keep the SES model and then use a smaller number of neighbours, which makes as much sense as charging patients a particular fee in hospital according to how well of their neighbours are. In the long run, it wants government support to be based on the income of each parent whose child is at a private school. This, of course, will never happen, but if it did, it immediately changes the principle under which education is funded everywhere. It becomes inevitable that public school parents start to pay fees based on their income. The income tax system is meant to redistribute income and then everyone, poor or rich gets access to public services. If ?capacity to pay? becomes the principle for private school funding, it will become the principle for public school funding.

The Gonksi model is guaranteed to socially stratify our schools because it says the more you earn the less your child gets. Thus, the wealthy, the middle, and the poor all have to concentrate in their own schools because the funding system segregates them. A school that wants to take both middle class and poor students will not be able to because the presence of middle class students will cut its government funding and thus push its fees up and thus drive out the poor, who will end up at the public school. There is no better way to create public school ghettos than this Gonksi proposal.

The media coverage of the current funding system and the Gonski report has been very poor. Thus, The Age, in the time since the report was released, has not once published an article justifying the SES model or one explaining that the so-called ?overfunding? simply puts schools where they would have been if the ERI model had stayed in place or that the Gonksi model is an SES model.

We need to return to the Labor model of the 1990s, which would switch the schools covered by the funding guarantee. Returning to the ERI model would cut the entitlements of some schools under the SES model, and the funding guarantee would apply to them. However, there are several steps than can be taken, such as differential indexation, that would reasonably quickly move all schools to the same model and the funding guarantee would become irrelevant. I have dealt with these in my submission to the Australian Education Bill 2012 inquiry and to the Australian Education Bill 2013 inquiry.

If we continue with any form of SES model we will not solve the problem. If we return to the ERI model, we can make future adjustments to it that will improve the overall equity of the system.

Moi:

22 Jul 2013 5:02:27pm

Labor defunds universities so as to teach kids who don't want to learn in the first instance. All on the premise that our nation won't need brickies and tilers and electricians in our bright new furture. And all to correct a decline in education performance that is "just above that of statistical uncertainty".

Lehan Ramsay:

23 Jul 2013 8:40:01am

We don't have that kind of luxury, Moi, in which kids who don't want to learn don't have to. School is not some kind of optional piano lesson or new app. If nothing else it gives kids a sense as they are growing up of what society means, outside of their families. That's pretty important. To say that one playing-up kid does not have to have that because they're not studious and that another studious kid does not have to understand that everyone is not studious, that's a pretty serious dereliction of care, don't you think?

I think we already don't consider nearly enough the effect of taking our kids out of public education. The wealthy people often kept their kids out of public education because they could do whatever they wanted. But if they wanted their kids to lead society, or to be involved in it, they often shoved them into boarding schools. We are not wealthy people. Why are we pretending to be.

skip:

22 Jul 2013 5:08:42pm

the non-government school my daughter attends is open to all, as long as you pay your fees. there are selective government schools and catchments, so government schools are not open to all. there will never be enough government schools to educate all children, and so there are non-government schools. the qld government hasn't signed up because neither the premier nor the education minister can interpret the legislation correctly, they think it will take away qld gov control. obviously they need further education!

Sting576:

22 Jul 2013 5:19:27pm

It is easy to understand why states are reluctant to sign up for Gonski or whatever the new Orwellian name is. State schools now get 90% of their funding from the States with spending controlled by the state. The Federal Labor government, under Gonski, wants to control curriculum, Student teacher ratios, and demands an increase in state spending and requires all spending to be allocated on a formula imposed by the federal government. In return real spending reduces for the first two years. Now if the formula is already a good match with the state view of how things should be done and/or it suits tribal loyalties the state will sign up. If not there is not much in it for the states.

Chris Curtis:

22 Jul 2013 9:22:25pm

Sting576,

It is not true to say that the federal government ?requires all spending to be allocated on a formula imposed by the federal government?. The Gonski panel recommended jurisdictions have the freedom to allocate the funding to individual schools in accordance with their own rules as long as they were transparent and needs-based. The government accepted this recommendation.

It is in the interests of the states to signup as they get a two-for-one deal form the feds for their schools.

Miowarra:

gd:

22 Jul 2013 5:27:59pm

Oh please another article about how the only way to improve our educational standards is to spend more money. Let's forget that Australia already outspends the top 5 achievers ( Finland, Korea, Japan, China and singapore) Just what do these people want to spend this money on. Have a look a the better education website and you see the top 31. national curiculum, well was any one state so bad that it was actually an issue. Yes it should be done, should of been done 30 years ago. But will it really improve outcomes ? NO!2. better communication between parents and teachers. Surely this actually costs no money at all3. ongoing education for teachers. Sorry to tell everyone this already happens. Nothing new here4. Funding based on student needs. Money is already spent on remedial students and programme.

Let's look at the difference between Australia and Finland

1. 80% of parents take their children to the library every weekend. Australians 80% of aussie children watch AFL/NRL each weekend. Iodolising these thugs and their thuggish behaviour.

2. Most Finnish parents consider their childs education their responsibilty not the States. Australia the other way around. Your child is thick because the education system fails it, notthat you don't read, teach your child math or have an intelligent conversation with your child.

So please let us save the 5 billion a year. The above article claims money is the answer, I suggest the author raed the OECD study " Can money buy better PISA results" The answer is NO ! Actually why doesn't everyone read the article, well because throwing money at a problem is easier than facing the facts.

Lehan Ramsay:

Chris Curtis:

22 Jul 2013 9:26:27pm

gd,

The education spending of a country has to be judged in the light of its own overall standard of living and the circumstances it faces in providing education.

South Korea spends less per student than Australia does because it is a poorer country. OECD figures show that it actually spends 20 per cent of its per capita GDP on each primary student (compared with Australia?s 17 per cent) and 30 per cent on each secondary student (compared with Australia?s 23 per cent). Education spending has to be examined relative to the overall income standards in the country.

Shanghai (which is the part of China that performed better than we did in a recent series of tests) is not a country, but a city. It does not have hundreds of remote and thus very expensive small schools.

Singapore is a country, but also a city. It also does not have hundreds of remote and thus very expensive small schools.

Nor do South Korea, Shanghai and Singapore have extensive equivalents to our English as a Second language programs to deal with the multi-lingual nature of Australia.

gd:

23 Jul 2013 7:10:47am

Sorry Chris these are % GDP figures when I talk about money spent on education. Check the OECD figures.

As to these countries not having an extensive english as a second language programme. You are not serious are you?I would make a bet that these asian students not only know their own language but are more fluent and have better gramatical understanding of the English language than most Australia kids.

Why Chris do you struggle to accept that the average Aussie isn't that bright and spending lots of money is not going to take then away from AFL/NRL to do extra study.

Miowarra:

Chris Curtis:

23 Jul 2013 8:13:42am

gd,

They are OECD figures. They are from the OECD?s Education at a Glance 2011.

China does not outperform Australia in education. The only place to take part in the international tests was Shanghai, a city in China. The remaining 98 per cent of Chinese students did not take part in the tests.

The point is obvious. Australia covers almost 8 million square kilometres and has to fund small schools throughout the nation. None of the other jurisdictions face this cost. A school of 8 students costs more per student than a school of 80.

philly:

22 Jul 2013 11:21:19pm

Well said, I fully agree. Money will not solve the problem. The USA spends more money on education than almost anybody else and yet they have one of the worst-performing public-school systems on the planet. The problem is our culture- both in terms of parenting and social attitudes in general. We value looks, wealth and popularity more than achievement or intelligence. And too much of our parenting has become increasingly in-ept and mis-guided. At most state schools, a small but powerful minority of students, mostly from dysfunctional homes or lazily-parented households, are allowed to totally disrupt every one else's schooling, and most schools are either un-willing or un-able to deal with the problem. It doesn't help that a number of school-principals are nowadays pen-pushing careerists who see their jobs as an escape from the class-room and take little part in the actual day-to-day running of their schools. It's much more fun to jump in the school-paid car and attend yet another conference with tax-paid buffet lunches. And meanwhile stressed out young teachers try to figure out how to teach youngsters who have grown up in welfare-dependant households and who have never seen a member of their family ever go to work. One school I taught at, at the end of year presentation night, half way through the program, the school band played a couple of instrumental numbers. Whereupon, over half the parents thought it must be an interval and wandered out into the foyer to have a smoke. Yep, we value our child's education here in Australia.

Lehan Ramsay:

gd:

It probably is more like we have to lift our game as a society, childrens education will follow.

Can this be done no as a society will take it's own path regardless of what a government may try to do.

Could you imagine if the government banned fast foods, forced supermarkets to stop target children with iles or sweets, stopped TV broadcasting from 3 til 6. All very simple things which really would not cause anyone to starve of die yet our society would be in outrage.

No the fact is Asutalia is just very lucky we have lots of iron and coal because we do not have much brainpower.

Johnny2:

22 Jul 2013 5:35:34pm

@Dugong. State schools deal with all the kids that Catholic and private schools dont want or whose parents have other values as well as taking education to most students in rural and remote areas. That adds up to a lot of kids. The way the fuding went under Howard and even under Gonski means more money is going to non government schools. As for performance the latest PISA scores show that most govrenment schools are OK but the difference between the haves and have nots widening. Surprisingly enough tmost have nots dont atetnd private schools. That is why the extra money is needed.

Len Heggarty:

22 Jul 2013 5:41:35pm

When it comes to education the state school administrators do the heavy lifting and without Labor's funding boost, the potential of their students will be further squeezed and squashed, like an orange.

Ronk:

22 Jul 2013 5:42:23pm

Maybe someone whose only qualifications are in humanities should not be lecturing about statisticvs which he clearly does not understand, or else deliberately misrepresents in an attempt to reignite the supposed "class war" over education funding.

The very small decline in funding of Government schools (AS A PROPORTION of total Government expenditure on everything - the actual amount of money spent on Government schools has greatly increased, even allowing for inflation) is much less than the marked decline in the number of parents "voting with their feet' by pulling tgheir kids out of Government schools to protect them from the Government's ideological agenda being forced dowen their throats.

The idea of Governments owning and totally controlling the education of children is a product of 19th century Marxist ideology which ahs now clearly failed. Education of a child is the responsibility of his mother and father, to delegate and control as they choose. The idea of one monolithic body controlling the education of two-thirds of a nation's children, rightly errifies us. especially when that monolithic body is the Government itself, which presumes to enter into and control all kinds of aspects of individual and family life in which the Government has no rightful business.

OverIt:

22 Jul 2013 7:45:45pm

"Increasingly LNP voters send their kids to private schools. "

You want to check out where Rudd sent his kids to school. Hint: it wasn't the local public school. He's far from alone amongst Labor politicians, either, on his choice of where to educate his offspring.

Mum:

22 Jul 2013 5:48:07pm

As a mum of 3 boys all with diagnosed learning disorders, duslexia, dysgraphia and gross speech impairment, I would have to say this article is fundamentally flawed. At my sons private school we have 20-30% of the students with learning disabilities and behavioural issues. The government schools provided no assistance to my sons because they tested on the 3rd percentile for speech impairments, you need to be on the 2nd percentile to get any help. Consequently we and many like me enrolled our children in private school, because there they get assistance. My sons can barely hear and this of course has impacted all their learning areas. We have a huge overdraft on our mortgage so that our boys can prosper.For some reason everyone insists that private schools have students who are of above average intelligence and wealth, and therefore it is unfair that private schools get funded. My children should get the same government funding as every other Australian child and in fact in private school we get significantly less. Why should my child get less because of a stereotype and incorrect propaganda? We pay taxes and work very very hard, our children should get the same as those with parents who often choose lifestyle over their children's education.

Curious party:

22 Jul 2013 7:45:18pm

Maybe if less tax money was going in to fund the private schools there would be more money available to support all the kids who need special assistance in the public system.

Incidentally, the fact that you have a mortgage which you can borrow against means that your kids are financially much better off than many of the kids with learning difficulties in the public system (who don't get support because the government pays to support the choices of the wealthy*).

*In this case I don't mean you - I understand and would do the same thing in your case.

Not My Real Name:

23 Jul 2013 2:09:56pm

'Mum', thanks for that comment. I get tired of pro public school arguments that are based on over-romantic ideas of what goes on in the public system, and at the same time make unsubstantiated melodramatic claims about non-government schools.

I know an indigenous kid from a very disadvantaged background in our community who dropped out of public high school because of bullying. The school did very little to address the issue and gave no follow up when he stopped attending. All that happened was that he lost Abstudy, which put even more stress on the family.

Thankfully, he has been able to get a bursary at a low-fee private school down the road, which he is enjoying - especially the fact that he no longer is being bullied. He now has a chance in life, which he didn't really have in the public system.

Jack Cade:

22 Jul 2013 6:33:45pm

Yes I agree a New Educational School Funding Model must be passed by Queensland, Nt, Victoria and Western Australia. However This is a medium term political fix, better than no fix and/or a short term fix. Unfortunately the politicisation of education in Australia will continue as long as there is a private and public education system and as long as each state controls its little show.

Together with no on-going federal government guarantee of an indexed national funding model into the future and the silly duplication costs of private and public system for a relatively small population, what should a thinking person expect? Some Northern European countries have realised this ages ago.The overall educational provision and outcomes for the majority of Australian students (despite public schools best efforts to address disadvantage) will continue to stagnate in the long term.

Only a change to the overall way in which a future Australian federal government defines and changes our economic system and economic base can real dramatic change be realised. Australia needs to continue supporting international laws to enforce foreign corporations to pay reasonable tax (no tax havens and transfer pricing-for a start) then and only then can real change begin and a funding guarantee can be proposed.to allow an educational catch up with some other countries. Fortunately the last Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan did support with other countries changes to transparent international tax laws for corporations to allow for less tax avoidance world wide.

Peter Curtis:

Miowarra:

23 Jul 2013 8:14:24am

The ACTU (and unions generally), unlike the employer groups and peak bodies, are not legally permitted to organise and lobby for anything other than a very limited range of industrial causes since WorkChoices and the other oppressive Howard-era anti-Union legislation.

TheNewBoilerMakerBill:

22 Jul 2013 7:01:35pm

PS: lets also have a little reminder that the Gonski Panel had little to do with education: only one of the Gonski panel (Boston) had any formal education expertise: all the others (Gonski, Greiner, Lawrence, Scales and Tannock) were not even educators!

Miowarra:

Dean:

22 Jul 2013 7:07:34pm

What if the core Gonski principles, base funding plus loadings, were applied in a similar manner to Medicare. In much the same way as you choose your doctor, you choose your school. You do whatever research satisfies you and choose a school and enroll your child. At the start of each term you swipe your Medicare card and the government pays the school to educate your child. Some schools will charge a gap, some will not. If you are not happy with the school, you enroll them in a different school.

This will allow for much greater diversity in schooling models. Some schools will specialize in certain areas. Partnering with universities, sporting clubs, arts academies or businesses. Some will offer smaller classes, giving teachers an opportunity to focus on teaching disadvantaged children with higher per student funding, or give graduate teachers an opportunity to refine their skills with a smaller class first. Other teachers may prefer to advance their career and teach a larger class, possibly assisted by a salaried teaching assistant or junior teacher, giving them the opportunity to earn a greater income but with greater demand for results.

Of course none of these options would be forced upon anyone. Just as if you can change doctors under Medicare, you could change schools.

Miowarra:

Ah yes, the Colesworths Academy for Checkout Chicks. I can see _that_ school developing the next leaders of scientific and industrial fields - not!

"If you are not happy with the school, you enroll them in a different school."

Oh yes, Father's job requires him to stay in Bendigo. Mother works in Mudgee. The kids have to go to boarding school.

If you don't like it, ditch the family's paid employment and move to Melbourne where there's a school that has small classes. What? You can't afford to quit the job or the relocation costs? Then YOUR kid doesn't get a fair education.

No, the public education system has to provide equal education opportunities for children wherever they are.

Baker Boy:

22 Jul 2013 9:16:06pm

Don't waste your breath Peter. Our government (as a reflection of our society) will follow the poorer performing countries in a bid to improve our education outcomes and then blame the teachers when it doesn't work out. God forbid we follow the Finnish model; much better to follow the good ol' USA & UK in the race to the bottom.

ltfc1:

22 Jul 2013 9:31:07pm

So the ALP are going to throw another load of money at a problem and all will be as it should be or so they say. How about all you education gurus sitting down at your machines tell me what your going to spend all this money on and why you can't work with the money you already have? Teachers, teachers and more teachers which equates to more union members and more voting power at the polls maybe! How about industrial action every time you can't get what you want! It doesn't matter that more children than ever are leaving school without receiving a proper education even though class sizes are small, resources are abundant, wages are exceptional, conditions better than most, combined annual leave and school holiday leave is unbelievable and finally knowing all this before you start studying and teaching. What's more laughable about the whinging that the teachers union and ALP argue is wrong about our education system is that the ALP has been in government in Queensland, NSW, Vic, Tasmania and South Australia and at a Federal level for so long and nothing they have done has fixed the problem that they in turn caused. The unions blame the opposition, State governments and anyone else they can find but now they are about to get a huge amount of money the problem will be solved or so they say. The truth is that many modern teachers can't teach, are educationally devoid of ability and many shouldn't even be in the education game but hey it pays the bills.

Chris Curtis:

23 Jul 2013 8:30:09am

ltfc1,

Your account of teachers? pay and conditions is nonsense.

I have already given figures that show on staffing and class sizes are in some cases worse than they were decades ago. The average secondary class size in Victoria was 20 students in 1992 and had increased to 21.4 students in 2011). The secondary staffing ratio was 10.9:1 in 1981 and had increased to 11.8:1 in 2011.

The RBA calculator says that the total CPI increase from January 1975 to January 2011 was 559.1 per cent.

A sub-division 14 teacher (the top unpromoted sub-division, automatically reached after seven years) was paid $11,400 ($75,136 in today?s dollars) in 1975 (The Secondary Teacher, No. 4, May, 1981). A teacher with seven years? experience was paid $69,946 in 2011. That is $5,190 (6.9 per cent) less than 36 years earlier. However, a teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $90,915 in 1975. A teacher was paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation in 2011, giving a total salary package of $76,241. That is $14,764 (16.1 per cent) less.

The top unpromoted teacher salary was $81,806 in 2011 (reached after ten years and performance reviews), giving a real increase of $6,670 (8.9 per cent). However, a teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $90,915 in 1975. A teacher was paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $89,169. That is $1,746 (1.9 per cent) less.

In 1975, sub-division 14 teacher was paid 166.2 per cent of Male Average Ordinary Time Earnings. That would be $117,671 in 2011. A teacher with seven years? experience was paid $69,946 in 2011, $47,725 (40.6 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained. The top unpromoted teacher salary was $81,806 in 2011 (reached after ten years and performance reviews), $38,856 (30.5 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained.

Ozchucky:

22 Jul 2013 10:20:57pm

Here is an inconvenient little factoid for all politicians who are resisting reforms to our education system.

When you are old and dependent on others for your continued existence, the people who were educated under your rule will be operating your nursing home. Indeed they will be running the world.Ponder. Please.

will_r:

22 Jul 2013 11:03:28pm

The answer is not hosing more money into the bureaucratic black hole. The answer is privatising the school system entirely, while having universities run their own matriculation. There is no reason why schools should not be run as businesses. Parents need to shoulder the full burden of their child-bearing choices.

When schools can pick and choose students - and parents - you will see standards start to climb. When they can choose teachers and pay them market rates, unhindered by box-ticking bureaucratic BS, we'll start to see physics teachers who know physics. When said professionals can write their own curriculum, we'll see some rigour returning to our education.

In fact, far from costing a bomb, this will save the taxpayer a great deal.

sk:

22 Jul 2013 11:15:35pm

Dear Peter,

Thank you for informing the ABC readership that what our federal government is asking our states to sign up to is not the genuine Gonski. Was your intention to tell us what the education hand out really is or to criticize the current unfair distribution of education funding?

Chris Curtis:

23 Jul 2013 8:43:33am

sk,

In what way is ?what our federal government is asking our states to sign up to ? not the genuine Gonski?? I have listed the details in my 22 Jul 2013 3:21:02pm post, and no one has contradicted me ? because they can?t. The ?the federal plan is not the Gonski plan? myth is well on the way to joining the ?John Howard changed the definition of unemployment?, the ?the states did not abolish the taxes they promised to abolish in return for the GST?, the ?the 1967 referendum made Aborigines citizens and gave them the vote? and the ?education spending increased by 40 ? sometimes 50 ? per cent in the 2000s? myths as entrenched in public debate.

Bruce Smith:

23 Jul 2013 12:26:34am

The schools reforms and funding for students with disabilities should involve more Catholic and Independent schools as they are more than capable of delivering an equally if not better service for these students. Lets not carry on this tired argument on the past status quo. Lets frame the debates as it could/should be.

I know from experience, Catholics schools do their share in taking on the students with special needs.

Chris Curtis:

23 Jul 2013 8:48:40am

Bruce,

The funding for students with disabilities does ?involve more Catholic and Independent schools?. The Gonksi plan is to provide loadings for disabilities in full to whatever school the student attends. It also provides loadings for other disadvantages to all schools, though the language is a little obscure as to whether those loadings are a percentage of the full SRS or of the amount of the SRS that the private school gets.

Mel Waddy:

23 Jul 2013 3:20:05am

put up or shut up I homeschooled my six - what I achieved may not have been 'perfect' - but at least my kids can come back to me with any issues they might have.no government funding - when the Ed Dept nazis asked to approve my curriculum, I asked for the equivalent $30k funding that my kids would have been entitled to as state school students. Needless to say that never materialised.

Chris Curtis:

23 Jul 2013 2:29:17pm

Fidel,

PISA tests show that Australian students consistently score in the top countries in the world. In science, Australian students averaged 527, while the UK?s averaged 514. In reading, Australian students averaged 515, while the UK?s averaged 494. In maths, Australian students averaged 514, while the UK?s averaged 492.

Jay Somasundaram:

23 Jul 2013 10:22:48am

Yes, let's take education seriously.

Let's start recognising that it is the responsibility of parents, relatives and the community to educate and raise children well. Let's not farm them off to schools and pre-school care so that the mothers are free to enter the labour market.

Let's start treating education as a technology - not the IT bandwagon, but real technology, as the application of hard science substantiated by valid and reliable evidence, rather than the arm-chair pseudo-science that pervades the discipline.

Learning can be measured by neuroplastic changes and EEG patterns. Instructional design should be based on calculations of working memory and cognitive load. Let's drag education into the twenty-first century.

Sandra:

23 Jul 2013 2:19:47pm

I am amazed at how many commentators are such experts on what a great life teachers working in public schools have! Just for your interest there has been a recent historical trend towards employing new teachers on contracts, from the beginning of semester 1 until the end of semester 2. Meaning that they are not employed or paid for the holidays over the summer. And there is no guarantee of continuing employment from year to year. Tell me honestly, how many of you, who think teachers have such a great life, would put up with that? How would you be able to secure a mortgage? I have watched colleagues struggle with this lack of job security, in what should be a guaranteed job for life if you are a dedicated professional, as many of them are. It doesn't give one hope for the future of education of Australia's young people if their teachers are treated so poorly.

Steve Mount:

23 Jul 2013 2:37:41pm

"Pedagogy"? In my experiences, once teachers have amassed sufficient years in the teaching trade, they lose the ability to discern between students and other adults, and hence come across as superior and more knowledgeable, until another reminds them.

BNB:

23 Jul 2013 3:20:58pm

Can anyone please explain to me why we need private schools?

The best arguments I've heard seem to be appropriate for europe in the 1600's, not for Australia in the 21st century.1. religion? (um... sorry, which century are we in again?)2. so we can control what our kids learn? (does your average bible-thumping, evolution-denying parent really have a right to say how future members of our society (whom we all have to deal with) comprehend say, he basics of natural selection?2. because private schools give better education? well, not really - even if it were the case, we fund some schools more, to the detriment of others - so we can claim some kind of misplaced, enforced prestige? how does this make sense?

Damo:

23 Jul 2013 3:30:02pm

A contributing factor to educational performance is the enduring model of one size fits all education. Most of us who have gone to school know that some kids thrive in that environment, some do better (or simply are self-motivated to work outside school hours) while some don't. A significant group are also learning impaired in some way with literacy or physical issues. All of the issues of teacher competence etc. certainly apply, but a clear and common factor everywhere is that more one on one resourcing is needed to lift the kids who need extra help. This is where extra $$ is needed. Recognition of basic conditions like dyslexia would also help. This is a common public/private school issue, since children come in all levels of ability, rich, poor or otherwise. Measuring levels is the first step, solutions to lower standards has to be the next (and one size fits all should not be the answer). If the money goes on new curriculums, increased beauracracy etc. that will be a total waste. These kids can thrive, given the right resources (i.e. starting with a learning support teacher).